Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9244248" data-attributes="member: 87792">Oh, I have no point of disagreement with this. There is definitely a lot more primal magic (including a half-caster barbarian subclass) that can and should be added.I've limited diagreement here. I don't see "the pet class" needs to be primal, merely that there need to be primal options; pets aren't a druid exclusive thing. I actually think that between the beastmaster ranger, the wildfire druid, the battle smith artificer, and the pact of the chain 5e is close to getting it right.Mmmm... I think you're coming at this in too limited a way. More shapeshifting is definitely needed. But I'd rather have multiple different chassis; a ninja/ranger shapeshifter feels like a different thing from a barbarian/brute. I'd rather multiple subclasses here.In short a tiny fraction of spells. Your Far Hand with two metamagics here isn't four spells given that upcasting is now part of basic spellcasting, it's two. (It has two augments, one for range and one for weight - current mages can handle one and get a second spell if needed). There are several key things here:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Upcasting is a property of the spell not the class</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">5e casters can already upcast in a single direction on 5e spells</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sorcerers can also metamagic</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Only a small fraction of psionic spells in 3.X have multiple augments</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Many psionic spells that appear to have multiple Augment options (like Brain Lock or Control Flames) could easily have them rewritten for a single augment option - in the case of Brain Lock the multiple aguments widen the target selection (it's a quasi Hold Person/Hold Monster) and in the case of Control Flames the separate augments are one to increase the fire and the other decrease it</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some of these augments (especially Far Hand) are low level faffing.</li> </ul>In short the entire objection seems to be "Nothing but a class will do because there are about half a dozen spells that do not fit".And how often do wizards actually do that in 5e?If you're talking the 4e Swordmage with the Aegis (especially Assault) I can agree - but that is not "a gish" of which 5e is well supplied; it's a very specific implementation of a gish. The Duskblade? That's only a hair away from the Eldritch Knight other than one gets heavy armour earlier and the other gets casting earlier. (The Duskblade gets 5th level spells to the EK's 4th level, more spells per day and about two different abilities). If it's 5th level spells you really care about there's always the Artificer.There's already a 90% match to what you want to do without needing to dump a new class on 5e.Both Greenflame and Booming Blades (and a few other warrior spells) are literally in 5e.That's because every new thing added materially makes the game worse because it makes the mechanical overhead higher.Oh, agreed. But all the classes you list there are a significant improvement on even their 3.5 versions, never mind their 3.0 ones (there is an argument that unlike the other three the 3.5 PHB Ranger might even be a match for the 5e PHB one, but the 3.0 ranger wasn't so much undercooked as raw). And adding half baked prestige classes or even half baked classes like the Duskblade in general just ensures there is more undercooked material in the game. I'm convinced that one reason 4e worked as well as it did is you couldn't just churn out a class with a pitch of "angry fighter" or "spontaneous wizard", give it a name, and declare it to be done. Instead you needed multiple subclasses and dozens of powers and fit it to a role while meeting benchmarks, so you needed to really think about the class.</blockquote>

Verification